In a previous article we discussed the difference between Communication and Dissemination and how the terminology can be a point of confusion for many Horizon 2020 applicants. In a similar vein, applicants can sometimes be unsure about how to differentiate between innovation potential in the Excellence section (1.4) and innovation capacity to be described under Impact (2.1).
If we consider the relevant parts of the H2020 collaborative action proposal template/evaluation criteria, we see:
(1.4): Extent that the proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models)
(2.1): Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the work programme, that would enhance innovation capacity, create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society.
The key differentiating point to take note of:
The innovation potential relates specifically to your project and the exploitation potential of your project results and related impact.
On the other hand, the innovation capacity has a broader aspect and relates to how your results may be used for future innovation in new areas beyond your own project application area. This may include not only the consortium partners therein but also your results being made available for use by other researchers and commercial entities.
In my experience, applicants generally get the first part right, and under Excellence they correctly describe innovation potential and how the expected results/outputs will address the specific challenges of the call topic and deliver benefits that contribute to the expected impacts.
HOWEVER, in Section 2.1 they will often miss out on the inclusion of innovation capacity as one of the “other substantial impacts”, perhaps not wishing to duplicate what has already been covered in Section 1.4, rather than appreciating the nuanced distinction and reflect on whether their project results will be capable of stimulating further innovation and use.
Think about whether your project results can stimulate further innovations or can be used beyond the project objectives, perhaps not only for you but also for other organisations in Europe. This will maximise the impact generated from your endeavour. (IPR Help desk)
A couple of ESR sample examples show how this distinction might be considered by evaluators:
(1.4): The novelty and the comparative advantages of this game-changing innovation are highly significant and the prospect for market success is very high.
(2.1): The project has high potential impact on the innovation capacity of industry partners and may contribute to the initiation of further projects on multiplex biomarkers for different cancers.
Finally, a third dimension of innovation, relating to Section 3 Implementation, is the coordination of all innovation related activities under Innovation Management.
(3.2): Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management.
This is more self-explanatory terminology but always good to look to include specific management aspects relating to innovation activity rather than restrict oneself to the more generic management descriptions often used, e.g. the inclusion of a dedicated Innovation Manager (IM) in addition to the Project Coordinator/Manager. The IM might have responsibility for ensuring that the innovation management processes and structures are sound and working efficiently, while constantly monitoring the market, IP, regulatory and technology landscapes, directed towards ensuring effective product development and successful market entry.
Hoping this article gives some food for thought for those of you working on H2020 collaborative RIA/IA proposals as the last 2020 calls close and we look forward to Horizon Europe.
Please feel free to comment below!
#eufunding #proposalwriting #innovationmanagement